• About
  • BULLETIN ARTICLES

etsop95

~ Perspectives on Bible, philosophy, and politics (sometimes)

etsop95

Tag Archives: faith only

Blind Leading the Blind

27 Tuesday Aug 2019

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

blind, faith only, salvation, sinners prayer

If the blind lead the blind, then both the blind and those led by the blind will fall into the ditch.

Who are the blind? When Jesus spoke His words (Matthew 15:14), He was speaking of the religious leaders and their precepts or commands of men. The word tradition, a word Jesus used in this context, is a word that means “passing down.” The word can be understood in a favorable context as well as unfavorable. When Jesus used the word, it was most certainly unfavorable. Why so unfavorable? Because the passing down of teachings from men had the effect of neutralizing God’s word, His will for the nation of Israel. This resulted in religious leaders and teachers setting to the side the Lord’s express will and living by the guidance of man. Jesus called these leaders blind, and to make it even worse, those who follow their teachings are themselves blind.

We live in a context today that is similar. We have blind religious leaders leading blind religious people (or semi religious) and both will fall into the ditch. Here are some examples. First, there is the common teaching that many churches subscribe to what is called the sinners prayer. Here is what they mean: a contrite person is to pray a particular prayer asking Jesus into that person’s heart. This is not Bible teaching; the closest one can get to wanting the Bible to teach this is Luke 18:9-14. Read it, ask yourself if this is a prayer by a sinner asking Jesus into his heart. Now compare that with what Peter said to those in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

The difference can’t be more obvious. If that is the case, then why do so many people follow this way of thinking? Just like they were in Jesus’ day, they are today. The blind lead the blind. If the blind don’t know (or refuse to believe) what the Bible teaches, how are they going to accurately teach? They can’t.

Lesson: search the Scriptures to see if that which is taught is so (Acts 17:11). If the thinking of your way can’t hold the day throw it away.

Ex-Church of Christ (2)

24 Wednesday Aug 2016

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

baptism, circumcision, ex-church of Christ, faith only, works

  1. Only people baptized in the Churches of Christ will be saved.

See here (https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1176-the-truth-on-baptism-should-not-be-watered-down) and here for examples of this teaching.

If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.” –Romans 2

RT – Pay particular attention to the assertion/accusation. Now go to the web link and see if the author of the article anywhere says what is asserted. In fact, the author of the article simply lays out a case for biblical baptism. There was nothing pejorative in what was written. Moreover, the passage referenced in Romans 2 by the author of this web-article lifted the passage out of the context in which Paul was addressing his words. Paul was talking about the Jew who was a hypocrite; that is, he insisted on obedience to the Law of Moses, but refused to adhere to it himself (note this especially in 2:17-29). Baptism and circumcision are not the same. Baptism applies to both the male and female; circumcision applied only to the male. Baptism applies to the males and females of all nations; circumcision applied only to the Hebrew (a descendant of Abraham). Baptism applies to people who have come to hear and understand the message of God with a penitent heart; circumcision applied only to the male who understood nothing, but experienced pain.

A Discussion Concerning My Post on 1 Peter 3:21

04 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

baptism, Baptist Church, faith only, salvation, works

This discussion is the result of a post I made on 1 Peter 3:21. The dates of our discussion correspond to the last of March and the early part of April 2016, on “Christian Discussions” on Facebook. You will note that the correspondence is direct in its tone; in my estimation, this is how it should be. I did not interpret anything that he said to me as uncharitable, disparaging, or unkind. I tried to respond in kind.  I hope you find this discussion helpful in your own studies.

*****

JG – If the Bible is the Word of God it cannot contradict itself. Therefore, salvation was always through Jesus’ substitutionary death, whether believers fully understood that or not in the Old Testament. God allowed them to have faith in the sacrifices, which were a figure of Christ, but they had to trust in a free salvation through the shed blood of a substitute. Salvation was always the same-free without works of any type.

If baptism is now required in the “new covenant” then there would be two ways of salvation, Old Testament and New Testament, which some do hold to. But a holy God cannot save anyone based on anything less than a perfect sacrifice, which is Christ. The thief on the cross, per the New Testament, died after Christ died, for they broke his legs so he would die before the sabbath. So the death of a testator inaugurates the testament/covenant (Hebrews).

The thief died under the New Covenant, which we are under. If Christ did not require baptism for him, then God can save without baptism. But God cannot save without Christ’s death for sins. Baptism signifies and testifies to our salvation. Yes the phrase in Peter is “baptism doth now save us”. But again, interpretation always depends on context. The Bible commentaries are trying to understand the phrase in the total context of the New Testament. Let’s look at John. The purpose of the Gospel of John was to help readers be saved. Now remember when the Bible was written it was not yet compiled into one book. So some Christians would only have the Gospel of John. In that book is what we need to be saved. No where does baptism appear as a part of salvation (John 3 “water” is not baptism. Nicodemus, a Jew, would not have taken Christ’s words to refer to this Christian rite. In context, then, how would Nicodemus take it? Either as physical birth: we must be born physically AND spiritually, born of the flesh and spirit, or he may have taken it to refer to the Word of God). In Bible days, if you meant business, you would be baptized. It was a given. It was always closely associated with salvation, though not the basis for it. Hence one might say, “I was saved and baptized last Tuesday” or “I was baptized and became saved last Tuesday” but not meaning the baptism saved. Only they would not mentally even consider a salvation that did not immediately involve baptism. Ephesians 2:8-9 notice we are saved “BY” grace, “THROUGH” faith. Faith does not give God the authority or ability to save us. It is only the means to receive the gift. The death of Christ (source of grace) gives God the authority and ability to save. The BASIS of our salvation is Christ’s work, not our faith, not our believing, not our works of any kind. God cannot save sinners if Christ did not die. God would sin Himself if He did. He cannot forgive sin. He forgives us only because the death of Christ met the law’s demands against us. He requires faith I suppose so we are not robots – so we will reach out and take the gift. But my faith is itself imperfect and sinful, and cannot be a BASIS for God to save me. Same for everything else I do.

RT – The perfect sacrifice is Jesus. The Lord’s requirement of baptism is not “two ways of salvation.” This is a failure to understand the comprehensive nature of what it means to be justified by faith. The thief on the cross was not saved under the New Covenant, as demonstrated in the piece that I wrote, because the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Acts 2, a number of weeks after the thief died. Yes, the death of the one who made the will inaugurates the new will, but not until the appointed time of that document being discharged. Jesus did not address baptism in any way at all with the thief, and the passage is a proof-text for faith only advocates. Yes, interpretation does depend on context, and the expositors understood well the context. The words “signifies” or “testifies” are not in the verse of 1 Peter 3:21, or John 3:3-5; it is inserted based on theology, not exegesis. Of course, we know that “water” is not water in John 3, but is some figurative word/expression of something else. Perhaps it means buttermilk! There is absolutely no reason to interpret “water” in any other way than in its normal meaning. The only reason this is not done is because faith only advocates stumble atf the obvious meaning of the passage. On what hermeneutical basis will you say it does not mean buttermilk? John wrote some time after Nicodemus was dead and gone, but for the sake of discussion, let me grant that Nicodemus would not have understood it in a Christian context, would Nicodemus not have known something of John’s baptism? Of course he would have (cf. Luke 7:29-30); he was not out of touch with what was going on, as indicative in John 1:19-28. There is no chance he would have taken that to mean physical birth, because the very nature of his follow up question to Jesus was asked incredulously (3:4). Thus, Jesus ruled out a physical birth. It is certain, there is NOTHING in John 3 to refer “water” to the “word of God.” One has to run to some other location in the New Testament to get away from the normal and ordinary meaning of the word water – all because of a theological predisposition. The basis of salvation is the Lord Jesus. The Lord told Nicodemus there are two components to salvation, and they are a “must.” Those two components are water and spirit. “Spirit” is generally interpreted to be the Holy Spirit, but there is no certain indication within the Greek New Testament to demand this. The Lord’s requirement of man was (and is) faith. This faith works exactly as Acts 18:8 illustrates. You might have been saved and baptized on Tuesday, but the New Testament does not recognize any such delineation. The word “works,” wherein a person is not justified by works, in a New Testament context is that act or thought that originates in the mind of man, used as a substitute to that which the Lord did (or said). There is no chance for you to be correct when you connect “works” to God’s commands. For by so doing you have relegated God’s commands as unnecessary, unimportant, not essential to one’s salvation, when 1 John 5:3 declares otherwise. The term “faith only” is not a term used in the New Testament in relation to one’s salvation, except in James 2:24.

JG – Therefore a man is not justified by the works of law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith and not by the works of law. For by the works of law shall no flesh be justified”. Galatians. Works of the law or “of law” refer to God’s laws and commands. We are not justified by works of any law that God has given. The law only condemns. Some say this refers only to the Law of Moses. But the Greek says “works of law” not necessarily works of THE law of Moses. Mosaic Law or Christian Law, we are not justified (saved) by works, but faith ONLY. This verse teaches clearly faith ALONE, whether it uses those words or not. The New Testament is clear.

RT – Completely false. You have to insert the word where the word does not exist. The context of Romans 3 demonstrate what law is in view, to say nothing of Galatians. I await your analysis of James 2. In the morning I hope to see it.

[The words within these brackets were not part of the original discussion. I include them because of the importance of the theme. ** The word “law” in Romans 3-4 and in Galatians pertains to the Law of Moses. The idea that “law” pertains to God’s commands are ludicrous. If God commanded something to be done, for man to come along and say that it is not essential puts him in a precarious situation (his resistance not withstanding). As I mentioned in a previous post, if a person wants to be justified by “works,” then that person has substituted something in place of the “mechanism” God employed whereby a man is actually justified. Man is justified by faith (Romans 1:17); this means that man is justified by his response to God’s gift (John 3:16). It does not mean, and never has, that man is justified by a mental assent apart from what the Lord said regarding other matters. Neither does it mean that man is justified when they trust in the Lord apart from that which the Lord Himself included in man’s salvation. For instance, the remark is often made that the other side of the coin identified as faith is repentance. The New Testament teaches nothing of the sort. There is no “coin” (or an equivalent word) where this is the case; it is strictly a man-made teaching. Some can very much believe, but a penitent heart follows not (John 12:42-43). The remark is made that God’s law only condemns. This is the case with regard to the Law of Moses, and the apostle Paul makes this plain (Acts 13:39). This not at all taught with what is known as the law of Christ (cf. James 1:25). It is either complete arrogance, or a lack of understanding, to say “law” refers to God’s laws and commands. Since the former might be interpreted as too harsh, then perhaps the latter is the case. Moreover, to say that baptism is a “work” of man is to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics Paul addresses when he speaks concerning the issue that man is not justified by the works of the law. I marvel every time I read one’s thoughts concerning this. The Holy Spirit made it abundantly clear than in baptism, one is placed into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27), in baptism one is joined to Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-7), in baptism one receives the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16).]

JG – Romans speaks of the law of God simply put. One is written, to the Jew. One is in the heart – the Gentile. One is not saved by law or law-keeping. It is all God’s law, manifested through conscience and the Scriptures. God commanded His people to be circumcised , yet Paul made it clear to all who trusted in their circumcisn that it will not save. “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galatians 2:24. God commands His people to be baptized, but after salvation. It does not save. Salvation is by grace through faith. Eph 2:8-9 does not say “by grace through faith and baptism, or church membership, or tithing, or doing good” although all those are commanded for believers. Please be careful, trusting in baptism I believe will prevent you from being saved. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.” Galatians 5:1-5. James does not contradict Paul. Read Romans 4. Abraham was NOT justified by works before God. James says he was justified by works. In the context James is stating how our works justify us before men who must see outward proof of conversion. God does not need that. So Paul says he was not so justified before God.

RT – Yes, it is true that Romans speaks of the law of God – it is the Law of Moses. Simply put. There is no codified law in Romans 1, though in Romans 2-5 the context makes clear, exclusively, the Law of Moses is in view. Though there is no codified law in Romans 1, it is clear the Lord held accountable those who lived before the time Moses was given the Law. With the Law of Moses being given to a particular people, it was then to the non-Hebrew people there was no codified law. What you call the “law of the heart” is not mentioned in Romans. Perhaps you can codify this “law of the heart” for our discussion. 

To be saved by the “law” or “law-keeping” is not something that I have argued for, and if you think so, then you have misunderstood terribly what I have written. Your remark on circumcision is correct – if one trusted in the act, then no good it would have done for the one who submitted to it. If one trusted in it. On the other hand, if one did not obey, or did not obey in accordance with the directive God gave, then that is another matter. Tell me, Jeffery, if a man decided to circumcise male infant on the 9th day, 10th day or the 7th day – would that have pleased God? Under the Old Covenant, one was justified the same as they are today, by faith. It was not faith alone, but by faith. Under the Old Covenant, a male infant not circumcised on the 8th day was outside the covenant. Being outside the covenant, Jeffery, was to be outside God’s designed “ark of safety.” To not be circumcised on the 8th day, would that have been pleasing to God? If so, then how do you know? If not, then one is inside the covenant without faith (because an 8-day old infant can’t be justified by faith), but only by circumcision.

Your Galatians 2:24 remark is fine, but that only goes to demonstrate that if one wants to be justified by the law – the Law of Moses – then that one is not saved. You would know this if you paid attention to the remarks of Paul in the chapter. It is not “law” in general, but the Law of Moses specifically. God commands His people to be baptized, but after salvation? This is taught, just as you wrote it, where? Your Ephesians 2:8-9 does not teach it. I suppose, if I were to reason like you, that I could say that “repentance” is not required for salvation because Ephesians 2:8-9 speaks nothing of it. Or, perhaps, I could say it this way, “repentance is commanded, but it is only after one is saved by faith alone.” Certainly, you will argue this way, right? if I were to trust in baptism as you think, your remark/warning would be proper. I am not, however. Neither can you read anything that I have said to conclude that I am.

Yes, it is true James does not contradict Paul. Yes, let us read and compare Romans 4 with James 2.

“What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God” (Romans 4:1-2, KJV)

“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:20-24, KJV).

If you read the context of both chapters, you can easily see that in Romans 4, Paul speaks of circumcision, directly related to the Law of Moses. Moreover, the word “works” in that chapter is directly related to the same word in the previous chapter, the Law of Moses. In James, the Law of Moses might be in 2:1-12, but in 2:13-26 it is not under discussion at all. What is under discussion is how one is not justified by faith alone, exactly contrary to that which you believe and teach! James speaks nothing concerning justification before men. To whom does James 2:21 refer?

JG – Sir: The Gentiles in Romans had “The law written in their heart, their conscience the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another”. You say there is no law of the heart? It is stated so in Romans. God is speaking of the moral conscience all non-Jews had and have, without having the Scriptures. That is not the Mosaic law, but God’s universal moral law. We are not justified by works of any kind, whether works under the Mosaic Law, or works under God’s universal moral law, or works under the Christian dispensation. Was God pleased if the Jews did not keep their covenant (Mosaic Law)? Of course not. Is God pleased if a Christian chooses not to be baptized, or live by God’s moral precepts? Of course not. But the Jew of the Old Testament, and the Christian of the new, are not justified before God by anything more than faith in Christ. Justification cannot stand on other than a perfect standard, which is Christ’s work done for us. We are not justified by faith, baptism, works or anything we do. We are justified only on Christ’s finished work, as was the Jew of the Old Testament. We appropriate that through faith in Christ, then we obey because we are new creatures. Please continue your studies in the New Testament and also theology. This argument has been around since the dawn of the Christian church, and has been amply explained in many commentaries. The Church of Christ argues on the radio prolifically for baptismal regeneration, but Christians of all ages have already dealt with that view in depth. Your understanding of the New Testament is still limited. Remember, there always was, and always will be, one salvation for all mankind of all generations. The Old Testament Jew was not saved any differently than we are. He was not required to keep any commandments for salvation, only to live by the covenant God required of the Jew at that time. Circumcisn did not save the Jew, and baptism does not save the Christian. The thief on the cross did not need to be baptized because Jesus does not require baptism for salvation. It is irrelevant what dispensation he was under, although he was under the New. Did he know about Jesus’ death and resurrection for our sins? You say “no” but we don’t know that. Jesus taught prolifically on his death, resurrection, and substitutionary atonement while alive. This thief must have known that since Paul required that knowledge for salvation. But even if he did not understand fully, the Jew of the Old Testament did not necessarily understand the Messiah who was to come and shed his blood for his sins. But he put his faith in the truth that God would forgive him through the shed blood of an innocent sacrifice. He was saved the same as we are, and God based his salvation on Christ, but God allowed his limited understanding. “The times of ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” Acts. You say Ephesians 2:8-9 don’t mention repentance and so in my view that would mean repentance is not necessary for salvation? Again you fail to understand the full meaning of the words. Ephesians says faith alone. That is all that is required. Then does that contradict verses that teach repentance? No, for that is included in faith. Faith and repentance are the same act, from different angles. When we turn from what we did trust in and from our life to Christ, that one act is a turning from and a turning to. You cannot turn to without turning from. When looked at as a turning from, it is repentance. when looked at as a turning to, it is faith. God can say faith is all we need, because when one has faith, he automatically has repentance. Once cannot have one without the other. The Church of Christ also makes repentance a different act than faith, and then make salvation a series of steps,like, ask, repent, believe, receive, etc. When one trust Christ, that act is a repentance, also a receiving, a trusting, a giving of oneself, an asking, etc. It’s not as complicated as some think.

RT – When Paul speaks about this “law” he speaks in the context of the Gentiles standing in judgment over the Jewish man because in his heart is a standard more faithfully followed than that which the Jewish man has codified (Romans 2:11-16). I am glad you pressed the point of the “moral law” and I concur that something did exist prior to the Law of Moses being given; it even ran concurrent with the Law of Moses until the time of Christ. Again, can you codify this “law of the heart” for us Jeffery?

Under the authority of the Law of Moses, Paul said that those who “do the law are justified” (2:6-13, NKJV). “Justification cannot stand on other than a perfect standard, which is Christ’s work done for us.” Justification stands because God declares it; there is no other basis upon which to measure it. Nevertheless, you will receive no contrary perspective from me on this remark. But, your next remark is flat wrong. “We are not justified by faith, baptism, works or anything we do.” The “works” you speak of wherein a person is not justified is that thinking and/or action that seeks justification apart from God. In a New Testament context: faith, baptism are not works of man at all – they are the works of God (John 6:29, Luke 7:29-30; Colossians 2:12). Moreover, the apostle said expressly that one is justified by faith (Romans 1:17) and baptism incorporates one INTO Christ (Romans 6:3-7). One is not a new creation when he is outside of Christ.

It is a lie to speak of the “Church of Christ” arguing for “baptismal regeneration.” Perhaps I can speak of man-made churches like the Baptist Church as being antinomians! Yes, I know this issue has been around a long time, thus, I am a strong proponent for public oral debates on the issue of “faith alone” and its disconnect from New Testament teaching. Neither have I argued that salvation is in any way different than justification by faith. I refuse, however, to subscribe to the false doctrine that salvation is by faith alone, something the New Testament does not affirm.

Again, you are flat wrong relative to your remark on commandments required to be kept by one who lived under the authority of the Old Covenant, as Romans 2:13 illustrates, to say nothing of Deuteronomy 30:15-19. Of course Jesus did not require baptism for salvation; He only said it in Mark 16:16 and John 3:5, again, to say nothing of what He authorized Paul and Peter to say!

It is NOT irrelevant what dispensation the thief was under – because the New Testament addresses it. Yes, I can say with certainty, far more than you can say otherwise, the thief on the cross could not believe in Jesus’ resurrection. Even the apostles had difficulty accepting the fact of it when Jesus spoke to them personally.

I do not fail to understand the point relative to Ephesians 2:8-9; I am only using your reasoning method and applying the tactic you attribute to me back to you. I knew well you would reject this and, moreover, I knew well what you would say (by and large). Find “faith alone” in Ephesians, anywhere in the epistle. “Repentance” and “faith” are two different words. They do not mean the same things. Whatever relationship might exist between the words – they are different in meanings. Go to Vine’s Dictionary or Mounce’s and transcribe where “faith and repentance are the same act.” It is not there! It is not me who fails to understand word meanings; “repentance” (metanoeō) literally means to perceive afterwards, hence to change one’s mind or purpose. The word “trust” is nowhere found in the meaning of this word. “Faith” (pistis) means a firm persuasion, a conviction based on hearing (Hebrews 11:6, 1). No, I am not the one mistaken in this matter. I await your authoritative references to sustain your point. Repentance has a keen relationship to faith, but they are different words with different meanings.

In a New Testament context when one is saved by faith, that one is saved as a result of Hebrews 5:8-9. In other words, when one hears the word of God, believes it, turns from sin and is baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of sins, that one is justified by faith (Acts 18:8). It is true, salvation is not complicated – but it becomes so when people assert a false doctrine like faith alone, when the New Testament teaches not a bit of it.

JG – For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:8-9. All that is needed is included in this verse. I cannot and will not argue the point further. Keep on studying and searching. We are saved by grace through faith. Repentance is not mentioned because it is assumed in the faith. One cannot have faith without repentance. Baptism is a work of man. It is an act we do beyond simple faith. We could say living right and doing good are works of God too. They are, but then the verse has no meaning. “To him that WORKETH NOT, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his FAITH is counted for righteousness (Romans). If you can’t see that’s faith alone, I cannot do more. I know you don’t accept that. I will leave you to the Holy Spirit to do as He sees fit. If your ardent study has not convinced you otherwise, there is probably nothing more I can do. It is up to God now.

RT – I will give you no substantive reply, since you want to go no further. I will reply in the word document I have made to keep track of the discussion, but unless you want to see that (which I assume you won’t), I will let it drop here.

[It is clear to me the substance of what I submitted last was more than could be handled. There is nothing in Ephesians 2:8-9 that warrants inserting the word “alone” in there like Jeffery does. Jeffery and those similar to him do the same as Satan did in the Garden when they insert a word not put there or even implied into the biblical text. One cannot have faith without repentance, we are told. Yet the demons believed and did not repent (James 2:19), the Pharisees believed but would not confess because they loved the praise of me more than of God (John 12:42-43). The people believed, but John refused to baptize them until fruits worthy of repentance was brought forth, and some feared being put out of the synagogue (Matthew 3:1-10; cf. John 9:22). Examples of faith without repentance. Of course, the reply to these examples will be, “But, that is different…they did not have a saving faith.” It is clear there is a difference between what one would call a saving faith and a faith that does not save; the point is sustained – one can have faith without repentance.

Also, the notion of God’s command as being works of man is ludicrous, unless man actually thought of God’s commands as his own personal work of righteousness. There is no chance, however, if a person seeks to obey God because of his love for Him, and God commanded a person to be baptized for (with a view to) the remission of sins, that person is seeking to be saved by works. A man who is “saved” by works is a man who seeks to substitutes what God put in place for his own way of thinking. As demonstrated in this discussion, the works mentioned are directly related to the Old Testament, in a system that was not designed by God to save at all (Acts 13:39; 15:10, 24). Could one be saved by God who refused to obey? No, one could not; that would be rebellion. Under the Old Covenant, one was saved as under the New Covenant today, by faith. It is not faith alone, but by faith.

It is a complete lie to say baptism is a work of man! I guess I could be charitable and say, when a comment like that is made relative to baptism, the one who so speaks, speaks from a lack of understanding. This is true, but the same one who so asserts bought into a lie fabricated before him. Baptism is nowhere called a work of man, to begin. Second, baptism is a command of God. Third, in baptism, one receives the forgiveness of sin and “puts on Christ” (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:26-27). If that is a work of man (it is not), then one whale of a work it is! Moreover, to equate baptism as a work of man with “living right and doing good” is to fail in making a distinction as the New Testament does. God expressly said baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21)! In Ephesians 2:10 and Titus 3:4-8, the idea of good works is clearly set forth after one is saved by God.

As I bring this to a close, I marvel at the insistence some have in their effort to relegate a command of God as non-essential for salvation, when the Lord expressly made it essential. Though I marvel at this effort, I am saddened by the manipulation of the biblical text (or texts) toward a theological bent not taught in the New Testament, as they affirm it. The Scripture is very plain when it is expressly said that one is not saved by faith alone (James 2:24). For those who subscribe to a man-made doctrine like faith alone (cf. Matthew 15:1-14), it does not matter what the Lord said, it only matters what they want to believe.

Jeffery said that he will leave me in this discussion to the Holy Spirit as He sees fit. For that I am grateful, for it is only the Holy Spirit (or God) that I want to please. Consequently, a man-made doctrine like faith alone I reject.]

 

 

Contradictions, Thief on the Cross and Baptism

31 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

baptism saves, contradictions, Cornelius, faith only, thief on the cross, Wuest Word Studies

Recently, I have been in a thorough discussion concerning what Peter said relative to baptism. In the midst of this discussion by a lady who believes baptism is not necessary to salvation, she submitted a link to sustain her point. I went to that link, and the remarks below is in direct relation to the web article she posted.

In an article, answering a question, concerning 1 Peter 3:21, this remark is make concerning baptism and salvation: “In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not of works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Here is what 1 Peter 3:21 says, alongside what Ephesians 2:8-9 says.

There is also an antitype which now saves us–baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NKJV)

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast (NKJV)

Note, especially, what Peter said baptism does. Peter forthrightly declares that baptism saves. Note, also, what Paul does not say in that which he wrote; he says nothing of baptism. Thus, the comment made in the web article inserts a word into a passage that is not there.

Shades of Genesis 3 and the serpent’s words to Eve.

In the lead paragraph of the web article, the author sets the tone for what 1 Peter 3:21 can’t mean, by inserting a word in the apostle’s Paul text that is not there.

Contradictions

In the next paragraph, the author speaks of contradictions. He writes, “Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all (like the thief on the cross in Luke 23:39-43).”

It appears the author of the web article does not know what a contradiction is. Merriam-Webster’s Deluxe Dictionary has this as a definition of a contradiction: “to assert the contrary,” “to imply the opposite or denial of” (p. 394). Furthermore, under the word “contradiction,” the dictionary gives this meaning, “a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something” (ibid). Since the author of the article did not cite a reference to sustain his point, go back up at look at 1 Peter 3:21 and compare it to Ephesians 2:8-9. Is there in either passage an assertion to the contrary of the other? If there is, what is that contrary assertion or denial? Under the English definitions given, it becomes very clear the author of the web article does not know what a contradiction is. That which Peter said does not contradict that which Paul said. According to this type of approach, the words of Luke 23:40-42 “clearly” contradict Mathew 27:44!

Thief on the cross

The thief on the cross is a passage that invariably will be brought to negate God’s command, meaning and purpose of baptism. The assertion goes like this: when Jesus was on the cross, the thief beside Him asked to be remembered when Jesus departs (dies), “Then he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.’” (Luke 23:42-43, NKJV). This passage is supposed to give us a doctrinal statement on what is not required for salvation. Though I did not mention it previously, the lead paragraph of the web article says this” “Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as ‘proof text,’ because it states ‘baptism now saves you.’” How ironic the accusation of proof text is leveled against those who believe in the necessity of baptism, when Peter expressly said it, though the same proof text accusation is rejected when leveled against the proponents of faith alone when the verse/passage they often use (Luke 23:42-43) mentions nothing about faith alone or baptism.

Was the thief on the cross baptized? The Scriptures do not speak to it at all. Thus, to conclude that he was or was not is unknown and not germane to the discussion concerning what Peter expressly taught. That which the Author of Life said to the thief on that occasion means that whatever the Lord said, even if it meant the thief had to drive to New York city before he could be saved, was sufficient for the occasion. Of course, the Lord said nothing of the sort. However, there is just as much justification for an insertion of driving to New York City into the text as there is of affirming a negative doctrinal point of regarding baptism in relation to faith alone in the passage!

Under the authority (or parameters) of the New Covenant, Paul said, one is saved if he (she) believes Jesus was raised from the dead (Romans 10:9-10). There was no way for the thief on the cross to believe this because he would have been long-dead and have no knowledge of such a thing having occurred. Thus, under the parameters of the New Covenant requirements, that is, a belief in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus he could not be saved.

Examples of salvation before baptism

Apart from the thief on the cross, the other example given is that which surrounds Cornelius (among the “countless examples” were are told exists). “A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized.”

As Peter spoke to those present on that great occasion,

“And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. (Acts 10:42-48, NKJV)

Prior to this point in chapter 10, we learn from the first 9 chapters the following about baptism. It is a command of God and directly related to repentance and the forgiveness of sins (2:38). It is also directly connected to the preaching of the kingdom of God, both men and women having been baptized (8:12). It is directly connected to the preaching of Jesus, and when salvation came up in the conversation, the question was asked if anything hindered him (the Ethiopian eunuch) from being baptized (8:35-37). From the foregoing Scriptures baptism is a command of God related to the preaching of salvation. We also learn that one’s sins are forgiven in obedience to God’s command to repent and be baptized; candidates for baptism are men and women and baptism is part of God’s gospel relative to the kingdom of God and Jesus.

With this before us, let us consider Acts 10. The events of chapter 10 are extraordinary in comparison with the events surrounding chapters 2 and 8. In both of these chapters (chapters 2 and 8), the gospel message was preached, and people heard and obeyed. In chapter 10, there is similarity, but also an exception. Cornelius was told by the Lord to send for Peter; Peter would tell him some things that would save him and his household (10:6, 33; 11:14). Cornelius heard the Lord’s messenger and obeyed him. Peter arrived and had begun telling those assembled about Jesus and the remission of sins (10:34-43). Suddenly, without prompt by Peter within the message he preached, directly from heaven came something extraordinary; the Holy Spirit fell upon those who heard the word (10:44). This was surprising to Peter and those who came along with him. Peter learned on this occasion that the message of God was not exclusive to the Jewish nation (cf. Acts 1:8 and take note how it actually complements the sentiment Peter expressed in 10:35).

Were they saved when the Holy Spirit came directly from heaven? Look at 10:6 again. Here Cornelius is told to call for Peter, and Peter would tell them words wherein they must hear and obey if they would be saved. The Holy Spirit that fell from heaven is not that which Peter spoke. When Peter saw what occurred, he called for them to be baptized in water. Why? Because, as previously stated, baptism in water is directly related to repentance and forgiveness of sins, to adults who are responsible for their thoughts and actions, and it is part of God’s gospel relative to the kingdom of God and Jesus (8:12, 35). It is clear from the context the Lord received Cornelius and those with him, but they were no saved without obeying God’s commands, as spoken by Peter.

The author of the web article has implicitly said, with his inclusion of Romans 8:9 as a sustaining passage, that each person who is saved, must be saved in the same way as Cornelius. That is, he (she) must receive something that comes directly from heaven (not through some person’s hands) and speak in languages as evidence of that.

Cornelius is an example or pattern to be saved, but only in accordance with the words Peter taught.

A Teaching Not Taught

The third paragraph of the web article makes clear to me what the author thinks some teach when there is a positive declaration concerning the importance of baptism. “While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt.” It is possible that some people put efficacy in the act of baptism, but New Testament does nothing of the sort. The efficacy (the power to produce an effect, in this case, the removal of sin and placing in Christ) is not in the act, but in the One who authorized the command to be obeyed.

Peter said submission to God’s command in baptism is the answer of a good conscience, it represents the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. It is, by biblical teaching, connected with hearing the gospel, believing that which is declared by God, turning from sin, confession of Jesus as Lord and dying to sin in baptism, to be raised to newness of life. The words of Douglas Moo are appropriate here: “…the popular explanation that Paul uses baptism as a symbol of our death to the old life (when we are plunged beneath the water) and resurrection to new life (when we arise out of the water) is also wide of the mark. Baptism does not symbolize what happened when we were converted; it somehow is integrally involved in that conversion itself” (Douglas Moo, Colossians and Philemon: Pillar New Testament Commentary, p. 202). The following passages teach exactly this: Acts 18:8, 11:19, 8:37, Romans 10:9-10 and Romans 6:3-7.

Kenneth Wuest (Word Studies)

The fourth and fifth paragraphs of the web article deals with the words of a Baptist preacher/professor of many years ago who produced a series of studies collected in what is known as Wuest’s Word Studies.  According to the web article, Wuest said that water of 1 Peter 3:21 is a counterpart. “That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as the counterpart, not actually.” The word “counterpart” means, duplicate, a thing that fits another perfectly, complement. Sometimes people will speak of one person and say of that person’s associate or friend, “Your counterpart agrees with what I said” (for instance). With these definitions in mind, Wuest said baptism is the duplicate of salvation, or the complement of salvation, as Noah experienced in relation to the great flood thousands of years previous. The word Peter actually uses is antitupon, which is translated antitype. The word antitype (transliteration of the Greek word) is defined by Vine’s Expository Dictionary “in the N. T. metaphorically, corresponding to” (435). The word is used in only one other location (Hebrews 9:24). The Holy Spirit does not connect the word antitupon (antitype) in Hebrews to the word “save” or “salvation” like he does in Peter’s remarks.

In Hebrews 9, the word antitupon is used in relation to the tabernacle, not salvation. The Holy Spirit declares that Jesus did not enter into the copy/antitupon (tabernacle), but into the actual (heaven itself). The blood of animals could not take away sin (10:4), and that into which the tribe of Levi (the High Priest) entered was only a copy of the actuality. The material blood of an amoral creature (sinless, but with no free-will) was not the adequate price paid to remit sins. The blood of Jesus (a man of material substance) was the adequate price paid to remit sins (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21). The reason for this, among others, was because of volition and sinlessness (Hebrews 4:15).

While on earth Jesus could not enter into the Tabernacle (a copy) because he had no authorization to do so from the Law of Moses (Hebrews 7:14; 8:4). Thus, while on earth, under the authority of the Law of Moses, the blood of animals offered in sacrifice was designed by God as an inadequate substitute to remit sins. Thus, there was no ultimate reason for Jesus to enter into an inadequate substitute structure.

Sin, of course, is not a material thing that actually sticks to the physical body of a person. It is a spiritual concept associated with the failing to obey God’s will (1 John 3:4). Because sin is a spiritual failing of the heart associated with the lack of obedience; there was and is nothing in man that is adequate to pay the price to atone for his sin/sins. The Law of Moses was of God’s design to a particular nation (Israel) until the right time in human history for His son to come (Galatians 4:4-5).

The use of the word antitupon in 1 Peter 3:21 is not paralleled in Hebrews 9 because the Holy Spirit used it differently in one context compared with the other. The word is the same, but the contexts are not parallel. The comparison fails!

Wuest’s attempt to correspond Old Testament blood sacrifices with salvation fails because the Holy Spirit does not make the comparison. The blood sacrifices of the Old Testament, can they be looked on as a counterpart to the blood sacrifice of Jesus? To a certain degree, but in a very limited sense. Remember how the word is defined. It means duplicate, a thing that fits another perfectly, complement. The blood of no-free-will amoral animals does not “fit perfectly,” or “complement” the blood of Christ. “Blood” is life, thus a counterpart. The actual kind of life (man/beast), however, is not a counterpart. Old Testament blood sacrifice is a counterpart in a life being given, but it is not a counterpart in the kind of life given.

Contemporary exegetes to Wuest

Below are some remarks of 19th century and early 20th century Greek scholars (corresponding to the time of Wuest).

Henry Alford. The ἀντίτυπον [antitupon] to that water on which the ark floated, saving its inmates, is the water of baptism; but as ours is a spiritual, not a material rescue, so the ἀντίτυπον is not the washing of our flesh by that water,—the form in which it is applied to us, as the bearing up their ark was the form in which their water was applied to them,—but a far nobler thing, the clearness and purity of our inner consciousness towards God: and this saving power of the water of baptism in our case is by virtue of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, into whose death and resurrection we are baptized.

Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Therefore, as suggested above, it seems better to take ἀντίτυπον as a substantive. The same earthly copy, namely, saving by means of water, which was presented in the Flood, is again presented in Baptism. Now, as then, it represents the same heavenly original, life issuing out of death.

Expositor’s Greek Testament Commentary. Baptism is generally the antitype of the deliverance of Noah. Christians pass through water (in both senses) to salvation; in each microcosm are the sins which must be washed away and the remnant which is to be saved. Therefore the antitypical water saves us (ὅ = τὸ ὕδωρ > διʼ ὕδατος) being οὐ σαρκὸς, κ.τ.λ.; cf. Titus 3:5.

Robertson’s Word Pictures. Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah’s deliverance by water. For baptisma see note on Matt. 3:7. For antitupon see note on Heb. 9:24 (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (antitupa) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (tupon, Heb. 8:5) for the earthly. So here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah’s family by water.

Wuest said it only saved as a “counterpart.” “…water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually.” Fine! Counterpart…, corresponding to…, model…, type… the point is this: the Holy Spirit said it saves! For a person who is a teacher, or a person who subscribes to that which is taught by a teacher that says otherwise than what the New Testament said has adopted a false doctrine. No matter all the manipulation done by Wuest (others), the Holy Spirit still said “baptism saves.”

With regard to exegesis, Wuest is very disappointing!

In his closing remarks of the denominational verse study, the author speaks of the importance of baptism, writing that Peter would not have entertained anything like that which many do today, that is, be saved by faith, and then relegate baptism to “something that is done later.” In the next to last paragraph of the web article, he writes, “Therefore, it is not surprising that Peter would see baptism as almost synonymous with salvation. Yet Peter makes it clear in this verse that it is not the ritual itself that saves, but the fact we are united with Christ in His resurrection through faith, ‘the pledge of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ (1 Peter 3:21).”

In Charles Williams Translation of the New Testament, here is what Peter said: “Baptism, which corresponds to this figure, now saves you, too — I do not mean the mere removal of physical stains, but the craving for a clear conscience toward God — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”

In spite of the effort of the author of the web article, here is what Peter made clear: baptism saves!

http://www.gotquestions.net/baptism-1peter-3-21

 

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 749 other followers

Last Month

Log in

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blogs I Follow

  • Christian Publishing House Blog
  • Canon Fodder
  • PreachingHelp.org
  • Biblical Proof
  • Sunrush Church of Christ
  • The Church of God
  • Brotherhood News
  • Believing Prayer
  • Daniel B. Wallace
  • NT Resources
  • etsop95
  • Forthright Press
  • Ferrell's Travel Blog
  • Larry Hurtado's Blog
  • Carolina Messenger
  • ThinkingJesus
  • CRI
  • Big Ten Network
  • eScriptorium
  • Biblical Notes

Blog Stats

  • 15,408 hits

RSS Unknown Feed

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
<ul id="<a-href="https://jar.tiddlyhost.com/-WebList">See-WebList
  • Blog at WordPress.com.

    Christian Publishing House Blog

    Apologetic Defense of the faith, the Bible, and Christianity

    Canon Fodder

    Exploring the origins of the New Testament canon and other biblical and theological issues

    PreachingHelp.org

    The sermons and writings of Steve Higginbotham

    Biblical Proof

    Speaking where the bible speaks, and silent where the bible is silent.

    Sunrush Church of Christ

    The Church of God

    Official Website of The Church of God (Restoration)

    Brotherhood News

    Believing Prayer

    Daniel B. Wallace

    Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary

    NT Resources

    etsop95

    Perspectives on Bible, philosophy, and politics (sometimes)

    Forthright Press

    Straight to the Cross

    Ferrell's Travel Blog

    Commenting on biblical studies, archaeology, travel and photography

    Larry Hurtado's Blog

    Comments on the New Testament and Early Christianity (and related matters)

    Carolina Messenger

    "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5)

    ThinkingJesus

    Letting Jesus Speak Today

    CRI

    Big Ten Network

    Big Ten Network's website

    eScriptorium

    Biblical Notes

    - Est. 1965 by Roy C. Deaver -

    • Follow Following
      • etsop95
      • Join 749 other followers
      • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
      • etsop95
      • Customize
      • Follow Following
      • Sign up
      • Log in
      • Report this content
      • View site in Reader
      • Manage subscriptions
      • Collapse this bar